↓ Skip to main content

Platelet-rich therapies for musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
39 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
137 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
488 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Platelet-rich therapies for musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010071.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vinícius Y Moraes, Mário Lenza, Marcel Jun Tamaoki, Flávio Faloppa, João Carlos Belloti

Abstract

Platelet-rich therapies are being used increasingly in the treatment of musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries such as ligament, muscle and tendon tears and tendinopathies. These therapies can be used as the principal treatment or as an augmentation procedure (application after surgical repair or reconstruction). Platelet-rich therapies are produced by centrifuging a quantity of the patient's own blood and extracting the active, platelet-rich, fraction. The platelet-rich fraction is applied to the injured tissue; for example, by injection. Platelets have the ability to produce several growth factors, so these therapies should enhance tissue healing. There is a need to assess whether this translates into clinical benefit.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 488 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 1%
Spain 4 <1%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Andorra 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 466 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 93 19%
Researcher 65 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 54 11%
Student > Bachelor 54 11%
Student > Postgraduate 51 10%
Other 171 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 276 57%
Unspecified 65 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 6%
Sports and Recreations 18 4%
Other 57 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 57. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 February 2019.
All research outputs
#280,225
of 12,931,138 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#774
of 10,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,941
of 189,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#20
of 192 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,931,138 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 189,906 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 192 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.